No Armistice In War on Poor

Armistice Day reminds us that when wars end, the winners and losers are supposed to make peace. For the first time, in 2009, leaders of World War II enemies, Germany and France, commemorated the date together as a sign of new mutual respect. But this week also marked the ten-year anniversary of a different kind of war -- a war on Americans' assets and the poor. Ten years later, while the winners and losers are obvious, there's no armistice in sight.

On November 12, 1999, after decades of banking deregulation, congress repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which up until that point had kept Main Street banks and commercial financial speculation apart. Glass-Steagall's repeal unleashed a wave of derivative marketing that rewarded shameless loan sharks for selling the most vulnerable Americans into a bubble of debt.

The bubble having burst, now the stock market is up. Companies are reporting strong earnings and Wall Street's clearly at peace. The top three banks announced this week that they'll be giving out their biggest bonuses yet. But this week's news also brought US double-digit unemployment and regardless of those good earnings, the layoffs just don't stop; Sprint says it's cutting another 2,500 jobs; Pfizer, 2,000 jobs; even supposedly new and growing parts of the economy aren't growing -- software developer Adobe's cutting 6 percent of its workforce, game-maker Electronic Arts is cutting 1,500 jobs. And that's just this week.

Winners and losers? You betcha. And the winners have won some serious loot.

Having suppressed wages for decades, now employers are suppressing jobs. Workers are not only making do with less -- they're working harder than ever, and there are no new hires, because fewer people seem to get the job done just fine. In fact, productivity's up, and the personal costs are off the books.

Call me crazy, but the spoils are pretty nifty: fewer workers, lower wages, a more terrified workforce. From a winners' point of view, what's not to like?

The proof of no-peace is in the fact that the president and congress keep talking about recovery and jobs bouncing back...but there's no real structural change on the table, no new economic tools, no regulation -- certainly no reparations -- in sight. The losers are weak and the winners are stronger than ever.

The US economy has lost some 10 million jobs since the recession began. Do you really think those 10 million jobs are coming back? It seems to me, the war is far from over and the spoils are just beginning to mount.

Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GRITlaura on Twitter.com.

Comments (60)

1. The repeal of Glass-Steagall ... Bill Clinton's doing. A lawyer & one-time law prof, Clinton knew exactly what he was up to. A world-class dissembler, he packaged his coup with old friend Bob Rubin as "defending the middle class." Don't take my word for it, check out Taylor Branch's The Clinton Tapes, wherein this gem appears, Clinton's self-serving lie accepted without any clarification or context-setting comment from Branch.

   Posted by sloper at 11/12/2009 @ 06:59am

2. Posted by sloper at 11/12/2009 @ 06:59am |

   While Clinton is most certainly culpable for this travesty...you can't deny that Phil Gramm was on a veritable crusade to place this fait accompli beneath Bubba's pen.

   Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 07:35am

3. The repeal of Glass-Steagall ... Bill Clinton's doing Posted by sloper at 11/12/2009 @ 06:59am

   Clinton is guilty of continuing the policies that began with Reagan. In 1996 Clinton declared "the era of big government is over" a Republican theme. What he failed to say following that statement is "the era of monopolistic corporate abuse and power has begun".

   Without the power of "big government" to regulate and control banksters, wall street and monopolies. These criminals will and have stolen power from the people and reserved it for themselves. Which has ended up with the destruction of America.

   In the past, the only thing that stood between us and corporate criminals was "big government". What most people fail to realize is that big government power in a representative democracy is the power of "The People". Once that power is removed the people will suffer the abuses of criminals and gangsters.

   This should be evident to anyone with even half a brain...

   Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 07:39am

4. We need to reinstate Glass-Steagall and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act immediately and walk away from insane trade policies like WTO and Nafta.

   But we have a President that apparently doesn't understand the urgency to make these changes and quit screwing around. If this crap goes on much longer "the people" will have to take matters into their own hands. And that won't be pretty..

   Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 07:50am

5. Since when is neglect an effective strategy in war?

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 08:19am

6. Armistice Day reminds us that when wars end, the winners and losers are supposed to make peace. -- Flanders

   No! When war ends the losers accept the winners demands in exchange for survival. It may be control of teritory. It may be control of resources. It may require the loser to relinquish all weapons. But peace only happens when the loser continues to submit to the victors demands.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 08:23am

7. One thing that definitely never happens when a war ends is for the victor to subsidize the loser in perpetuity.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 08:26am

8. My point is that the overheated war rhetoric is a collossal failure.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 08:26am

9. Since when is neglect an effective strategy in war?

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 08:19am

   WHEN YOU'RE BROKE!

   "Massive Defense Spending Leads to Job Loss

   Dean Baker, November 10, 2009

   For example, defense spending means that the government is pulling away resources from the uses determined by the market and instead using them to buy weapons and supplies and to pay for soldiers and other military personnel. In standard economic models, defense spending is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs.

   .........

   THE PROJECTED JOB LOSS FROM THIS INCREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING WOULD BE CLOSE TO 2 MILLION."

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 08:27am

10. "But peace only happens when the loser continues to submit to the victors demands."-----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 08:23am

    So does Darin apply that to losers of....

    elections???

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 11/12/2009 @ 08:41am

11. No! When war ends the losers accept the winners demands in exchange for survival. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 08:23am

    Wow Troll! Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bridge? Or do you just hate poor people?

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 08:42am

12. Wow Troll! Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bridge? Or do you just hate poor people?

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 08:42am |

    This is an example of a false choice. Why can't it be both? ;-)

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 09:14am

13. Hundreds of billions are available for unwanted and illegal wars. But very less for the poor.The government forgets the fact, that a part of the war expenses are enough to feed the poor.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 11/12/2009 @ 09:30am

14. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 09:14am |

    So, can we take your moving back to IA as a sign of self-loathing then?

    (walking away from a mortgage....tsk tsk)

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 09:35am

15. Things are shaping up just the way They want them to be: a nation of befuddled, fearful, docile serfs.

    But there's still time to heed the words of DEVO: Move forward! It's not too late.

    Are we not men???

    Posted by Citizen54 at 11/12/2009 @ 09:39am

16. FLANDERS: ".....the president and congress keep talking about recovery and jobs bouncing back...but there's no real structural change on the table, no new economic tools, no regulation -- certainly no reparations -- in sight. The losers are weak and the winners are stronger than ever."

    It's really funny, in a sad sort of way.....that the Lib mindset thinks that "regulation" would even be among the path back to job recovery! Bloody amazing!

    The changes needed to unleash the animal spirit, dying slowly but not entirely dead yet, are quite simple: Cut way back all the regulations and eliminate corp. taxes!

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 09:49am

17. Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 09:49am |

    Why should we bolster the bottom line of corporations and `hope' that they create jobs when we know that no sane corporation would do so in the face of NO DEMAND?

    Why do cons enjoy being trickled-down upon so much?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 10:08am

18. Why do cons enjoy being trickled-down upon so much?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 10:08am

    With what I think are educated Libs like you fighting tried-and-true growth economics, I know for sure, Magic is finished!

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 10:15am

19. posted by LAURA FLANDERS on 11/12/2009 @ 05:25am

    Multiple news sites claim that Adobe is cutting 600 jobs, or 9% of its workforce, not 6% of its workforce.

    Posted by syfriendly at 11/12/2009 @ 10:15am

20. Applied Materials, one of my stocks, after blowing away 3rd QT earnings estimate, plans to lay off 1,300-1,500.....gotta keep the earnings gain going!

    Hey, even Al Gore is into laying off folks!

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 10:22am

21. Cut way back all the regulations and eliminate corp. taxes!

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 09:49am

    HOORAY!

    oops..

    you're supposed to SMOKE the reagan pipe, not...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 10:26am

22. With what I think are educated Libs like you fighting tried-and-true growth economics, I know for sure, Magic is finished!

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 10:15am

    are you implying the nigger-in-chief is a LIBERAL?

    hahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 10:27am

23. i can see a LLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

    line of one-termers coming......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 10:28am

24. "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin Franklin

    Posted by abell12ct at 11/12/2009 @ 10:34am

25. Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 10:15am |

    Tried, yes.

    True? Uh, no.

    Carter tried cap gains cuts in '78...<bonk>

    Why did business failures spike during your '7 Fat Years' under Reagan?

    Why did Reagan's policies create 2.1% job growth to Carter's 3.1%?

    Please stop conflating growth of the financial industry with actual job growth...if that's your only meaningful stat, then Obama is doing just fine.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 10:54am

26. So, can we take your moving back to IA as a sign of self-loathing then?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 09:35am

    It is a sign that my wife wears the pants in our family.

    Funny story, actually. I'm in Charlotte today (been commuting all summer) and I love my job here, but I've found a new job back in Iowa that I'm transitioning to.

    Any way, after the holdiays last Feb my wife was depressed about being away from our extended family and was whining about wanting to move home. Feb being the bottom of the housing asset bubble burst I said, "Yeah, sure, let's move home. I'll make you a deal: you sell our house for what we paid for it and I'll move back."

    That was on a Tuesday night. The following Saturday, an agent walked off the street and left a flyer in our mailbox. He had a couple that wanted to buy our house and was wondering if we'd consider selling it.

    My wife called him back and said, "Sure, give us what we paid for it two years ago." A few weeks later, we had a signed purchase agreement, and I only had to pay 3% buying agent and no listing agent commission.

    On the brightside, I got my Hawkeye seasons tickets back for their 9-0 start. Too bad I won't be able to see them kick USC's ass in the Rose Bowl this year.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 10:55am

27. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 10:55am |

    As a Cal Bears fan, I'll be rooting for them to beat the Trojans alongside you.

    Sorry for the attempted slam...my liberal compulsion to defend the downtrodden got the better of me.

    I understand compromising for the wife...mine desperately wants to remain here in the Bay Area despite the fact that we could buy a house outright in any number of depressed markets.

    Her: "Sweetie...look at this house..."

    Me: "It has two commas...and it's a condo...it says 'house-like'"

    Her: "But it's in 'The City'...close to my work"

    Me: "So are the crack-whores, dear"

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 11:11am

28. "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin Franklin

    Posted by abell12ct at 11/12/2009 @ 10:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

    TOO BIG TO FAIL

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/12/2009 @ 11:16am

29. Without the power of "big government" to regulate and control banksters, wall street and monopolies. These criminals will and have stolen power from the people and reserved it for themselves. Which has ended up with the destruction of America.

    In the past, the only thing that stood between us and corporate criminals was "big government". What most people fail to realize is that big government power in a representative democracy is the power of "The People". Once that power is removed the people will suffer the abuses of criminals and gangsters.

    This should be evident to anyone with even half a brain...

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 07:39am

    Glass Steagall didn't remove regulation. It allowed Banks, Investment Companies, and Insurance companies to diversify and offer more products and services. That was done to compete with the Foreign financial institutions which did not have the same constraints.

    Gramm-Leach-Bliley did not remove the ability of Congress to regulate or exercise oversight. that is just leftist BS.

    And when GLB came out of conference, only 7 Dems voted against it; Boxer, Harkin, Dorgan, Feingold, Wellstone, and Mikulski, plus Republican Shelby

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 11:22am

30. "I am for doing good to the bankers, but...I think the best way of doing good to the bankers, is not making them easy in rescue, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the bankers, the less they managed their own risk, and of course became unstable. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became lenders."

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 11:24am

31. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 11:22am |

    "Glass Steagall didn't remove regulation. It allowed Banks, Investment Companies, and Insurance companies to diversify and offer more products and services."

    Yes, that's why GMAC and MetLife are doing home loan ads on TV.

    "That was done to compete with the Foreign financial institutions which did not have the same constraints."

    The ones that are being split up and sold off, like ING?

    "Gramm-Leach-Bliley did not remove the ability of Congress to regulate or exercise oversight. that is just leftist BS."

    You can't 'remove' regulations which were never put on the books (despite ample warnings from Brooksley Born).

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 11:27am

32. 1. cease defense of bill clinton, all on the left. not worth it...he WAS part of the problem. he kept the bubble ponzi economy smartly duct taped together, enabling the big blow-out of 08.

    2. eventually the poor and desperate will radicalize. whether they go

    a. radical socialist - sure righties, its possible and logical. despise and denigrate the desperate and eventually, realizing they have nothing to lose...they snap and get violently antinomian.

    b. reactionarily fascist - a certain percent of desperate dupes will inevitably come to identify with their tormentors, especially if there is an ethnic component at work, and turn viciously on their fellow desperados who fight tormentors.

    c. who knows? radical islam has plenty of violent, feelgood answers for the desperate...or...

    d. find a moderate voice and structure to oppose from...

    the poor will be despised for what they represent - the personal collapse so close to the average middle class schmuk, or the real visible results of the iniquity of certain segments of the wealthy...

    this is how the wicked few maintain their ultimately fragile hold on power, and always have - by setting the schmuks against each other, keeping them traumatized and scared shitless of living on the street or dying of some disease that could have been cured if noticed early...

    but be careful, satano-aynrandos...as the cable gets turned off and the internet blinks out, and all the lobotomizing pop-cultural garbage fades from the somnambulent brains of once zombified marching morondom...

    desperation will breed violence, and with all the weaponry out there, with the criminal domestic terrorist groups known as "gangs" and the tea-bagging paranoid birchers...

    BOOM!!!!!!!

    being rich costs money, morons...ask bismark...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2009 @ 11:34am

33. Glass Steagall didn't remove regulation. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 11:22am

    Are you O.K. Anti? I'm concerned. Glass-Steagall is regulation that prevents Banks and Investment companies from engaging in speculation. It restricted these entities from diversifying into things like credit default swaps and other exotic financial instruments.

    The repeal of Glass-Steagall and ignoring the Sherman Anti-Trust restrictions is what has created the problems we are currently experiencing.

    Maybe you didn't have your coffee this morning? Let me offer you a cup of Jamaica Blue Mountain Coffee. I'ts quite superior for ordering ones thoughts.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 11:42am

34. .that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer." -- Benjamin Franklin

    Posted by abell12ct at 11/12/2009 @ 10:34am

    tell that to the folks at goldman.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 11:50am

35. my wife wears the pants.

    I'm transitioning.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 10:55am

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 11:52am

36. Glass Steagall etc.,

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 11:22a

    wtf?

    c'mon, larry.

    not only are you a murderer but a corporate shilling as well?!?!??

    que dios te bendiga...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 11:55am

37. I know for sure, Magic is finished!-----Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 10:15am

    HAPP makes a prediction.....I feel safer already.

    "Like I told you, MASK, your analytical and predictive ability WILL eventually improve.....maybe a lot when McCain wins in November! HRC can't effectively deal w/Obama, the phenom, McCain and the GOP most assuredly, won't have any problems!"-----Posted by HAPPY 02/20/2008 @ 10:22pm

    "Here's a BIG prediction....Magic and his team will find, in 6 months or less, that he will have to have a real tax cut aimed at the top 20%, dramatically cut corporate taxes, extend Bush's tax cuts or waive capital gains on 2009 (& perhaps 2010) investments."----Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/22/2009 @ 8:49pm

    Posted by Mask at 11/12/2009 @ 11:55am

38. Jamaica Blue Mountain Coffee. I'ts quite superior for ordering ones thoughts.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 11:42am

    actually,

    coffee is one of the biggest causes of the GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 11:56am

39. Glass Steagall didn't remove regulation. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 11:22am

    Are you O.K. Anti? I'm concerned. Glass-Steagall is regulation that prevents Banks and Investment companies from engaging in speculation. It restricted these entities from diversifying into things like credit default swaps and other exotic financial instruments.

    The repeal of Glass-Steagall and ignoring the Sherman Anti-Trust restrictions is what has created the problems we are currently experiencing.

    Maybe you didn't have your coffee this morning? Let me offer you a cup of Jamaica Blue Mountain Coffee. I'ts quite superior for ordering ones thoughts.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 11:42am

    Nowhere did Gramm-Leach-Bliley remove regulatory requirements on banking, or on securities. It allowed these companies to offer more products, but nowhere did it remove the regulatory abilities of either the SEC or the FFIEC (the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council)

    http://www.ffiec.gov/

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 12:00pm

40. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 11:56am | ignore this person | warn this person

    keep my coffee out of this, FROSTY...step away from the coffee...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2009 @ 12:02pm

41. tell that to the folks at goldman.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 11:50am

    Goldman-Sachs is doing fabulously after receiving billions of dollars from the largesse of the besieged American taxpayer. They are the ultimate welfare queens. The working people of America are subsidizing the elite banksters. How quaint..

    Goldman is paying their average employee $650,000 a year plus bonuses while the real working people of this country languish in debt and despair as unemployment soars to new highs. Higher worker productivity has not translated into higher wages for 30 years.

    And the terrorist Bankers continue to fleece the American People. They threaten to blow up our economy if they don't get what they want. They throw a hissee fit and threaten to jump off the nearest rail of their fancy yachts while we despair.

    Isn't it time that we assail the walls of their greed and take back what is ours?

    I say it is far past time..

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 12:08pm

42. Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 12:08pm |

    There was a great line in The Economist t'other day characterizing the banks:

    "If you take me off life-support, I'll kill you!"

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:12pm

43. actually,

    coffee is one of the biggest causes of the GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 11:56am

    Uh OH! Spaghetti O'!

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 12:14pm

44. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 12:00pm |

    Tell us, oh wise sage, what were the amendments that the GLB made to the Securities Act of 1933?

    Something about excluding regulation of swaps?

    You're full of it.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:19pm

45. Tell us, oh wise sage, what were the amendments that the GLB made to the Securities Act of 1933?

    Something about excluding regulation of swaps?

    You're full of it.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:19pm

    Au Contraire.

    Did GLB end federal regulation of Banks and Securities companies?

    <In February 2009, one of the act's co-authors, former Senator Phil Gramm, wrote in its defense that:

    "...if GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass-Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified.

    "Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB." [31]

    The economists Brad DeLong (of the University of California, Berkeley) and Tyler Cowen (of George Mason University in Virginia) have both argued that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[32] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[33] An article in National Review has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act "folk economics".>

    http://tinyurl.com/y9zt2ur

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 12:28pm

46. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2009 @ 11:34am |

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuDMWzWsd1M

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:45pm

47. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 12:28pm |

    "Did GLB end federal regulation of Banks and Securities companies?"

    No, it CHANGED THE REGULATIONS.

    I can cut'n'paste from Wiki too, Anti:

    <1. The definition of "security" in section 2(a)(1) DOES NOT INCLUDE any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]). 2. The Commission is PROHIBITED FROM registering, or requiring, recommending, or suggesting, the registration under this title of any security-based swap agreement[.] ... 3. The Commission is PROHIBITED FROM ... promulgating, interpreting, or enforcing rules; or ... issuing orders of general applicability; ... as prophylactic measures against fraud, manipulation, or insider trading with respect to any security-based swap agreement[.]>

    You're either a banker's shill or suffering from some kind of financial stockholm syndrome.

    Get a clue.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:50pm

48. You're either a banker's shill or suffering from some kind of financial stockholm syndrome.

    Get a clue.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:50pm

    What you ignored is that GLB transferred that authority to the Federal Reserve.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 12:55pm

49. Snowball

    <Proponents of increased regulation of derivatives also overlook the fact that much of the use of derivatives by banks is the direct result of regulation, rather than the lack of it. To the extent that derivatives such as credit default swaps reduce the risk of loans or securities held by banks, Basel capital rules allow banks to reduce the capital held against such loans.

    One of Born's proposals was to impose capital requirements on the users of derivatives. That ignores the reality that counterparties already require the posting of collateral when using derivatives. In fact, it was not the failure of its derivatives position that led to AIG's collapse but an increase in calls for greater collateral by its counterparties.

    Derivatives do not create losses, they simply transfer them; for every loss on a derivative position there is a corresponding gain on the other side; losses and gains always sum to zero. The value of derivatives is that they allow the separation of various risks and the transfer of those risks to the parties best able to bear them. Transferring that risk to a centralized counterparty with capital requirements would have likely been no more effective than was aggregating the bulk of risk in our mortgages markets onto the balance sheets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulation will never be a substitute for one of the basic tenets of finance: diversification.>

    http://tinyurl.com/yento5k

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 1:02pm

50. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 12:55pm |

    Is that supposed to be a defense?

    And if there was insider trading in swaps (and there WAS), the Fed would do what, precisely?

    What a joke.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 1:03pm

51. Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    the revolution will not be televised...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2009 @ 1:10pm

52. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 1:02pm |

    http://occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-114a.pdf

    $203.5 TRILLION in notional value.

    http://tinyurl.com/yj2jbp7

    <Doomsday scenarios revolve around a credit disaster starting a daisy chain of defaults by CDS sellers unable to make good on their insurance obligations. Institutions that owned the securities would then suffer mightily.

    Just such a meteor strike hit two months ago when major CDS dealer Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15. A hasty federal bailout of insurance giant American International Group (ticker: AIG) followed two days later. The Federal Reserve's swift action might have averted a catastrophe. Without it, AIG couldn't fully satisfy some $50 billion in collateral calls to counterparties on $447 billion in CDS coverage it had sold. But now, the $250 billion in capital that the Treasury has infused into the U.S. banking system, along with the $150 billion in backing that AIG ultimately received from Uncle Sam, argues against any major hit to the CDS market.>

    You're an idiot, if you think that CDS are simply a hedging mechanism for bankers too lazy to do due diligence on their loan portfolios.

    "Financial weapons of mass destruction" is a very apt characterization of these "insane gambler's insurance" policies.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 1:13pm

53. the revolution will not be televised...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2009 @ 1:10pm

    the wisdom of sages.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/12/2009 @ 1:54pm

54. desperation will breed violence, and with all the weaponry out there, with the criminal domestic terrorist groups known as "gangs" and the tea-bagging paranoid birchers...

    BOOM!!!!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2009 @ 11:34am

    Brilliant observation! The true terrorist element in this country has, and has always been orchestrated from the right. They support the fascist takeover. Spot on.

    The only question is what do we do? I think at this point a "purge" is of the essence. We have got to eliminate domestic anti-american fascist elements within our society or risk a total meltdown of American society.

    And these political miscreants are coming dangerously close to undermining our Democracy and substituting a fascist corporate takeover of our government.

    These are the REAL Terrorists!

    It may require that we all become soldiers in defense of our sacred Democracy.

    Feel it out for yourself. I have. These are enemies of Democracy.

    Give them no quarter.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 2:00pm

55. And these political miscreants are coming dangerously close to undermining our Democracy and substituting a fascist corporate takeover of our government.

    These are the REAL Terrorists!

    It may require that we all become soldiers in defense of our sacred Democracy.

    Feel it out for yourself. I have. These are enemies of Democracy.

    Give them no quarter.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/12/2009 @ 2:00pm

    Sometimes you have to translate what comrade chaoszen writes

    <Lenin explained the historic importance of the revolution: "The Soviet government is the first in the world (or strictly speaking, the second, because the Paris Commune [1871] began to do the same thing) to enlist the people, specifically the exploited people, in the work of administration. The working people are barred from participation in bourgeois parliaments (they never decide important questions under bourgeois democracy, which are decided by the stock exchange and the banks) by thousands of obstacles, and the workers know and feel, see and realise perfectly well that the bourgeois parliaments are institutions alien to them, instruments for the oppression of the workers by the bourgeoisie, institutions of a hostile class, of the exploiting minority".>

    http://www.socialismtoday.org/80/lenin.html

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 2:32pm

56. Too bad I won't be able to see them kick USC's ass in the Rose Bowl this year.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 10:55am

    I was scratching my head over the betting line favoring Ohio State by a significant margin.....I despise OSU, kick their ass!

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

57. Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 2:32pm |

    You didn't think the 'purge' reference was a big enough clue?!

    But you keep on trusting Dodd, Shelby, and the rest to be 'better men' than us, Anti.

    That'll work out GREAT!

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:12pm

58. But you keep on trusting Dodd, Shelby, and the rest to be 'better men' than us, Anti.

    That'll work out GREAT!

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:12pm

    I have never trusted Dodd on anything. Shelby however has been a good Senator.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/12/2009 @ 4:33pm

59. I was scratching my head over the betting line favoring Ohio State by a significant margin.....I despise OSU, kick their ass!

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 3:15pm

    Iowa lost thier first game last Sat to Northwestern when our quarterback went out with a leg injury for a couple weeks.

    His replacement is terrible.

    We are going to get slaughtered.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 5:46pm

60. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/12/2009 @ 5:46pm

    Looks like I'm a week behind....on the Big Ten...even though, I now remember the big upset and your QB, I believe, lost a fumble in the end zone.

    Posted by Happy at 11/12/2009 @ 8:43pm